RUTH Davidson has voiced her frustration over a long-awaited review into how EU farm subsidies are distributed between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
The Scottish Conservative leader insisted the delayed probe needed to be “sped up”, and called on the Treasury to “get on and do it”.
It follows claims Scottish hill farmers are owed £160 million in EU payments which were wrongly shared throughout the UK instead.
Ms Davidson said she wanted to see the issue resolved, adding: “This money came back because we had chosen a different system in Scotland.
“It came back and, in my mind, should have been coming back directly to Scotland and not spread around the whole of the UK.
“I am pleased that there was an announcement that there’s going to be a review into that convergence funding.
“I just want them to get on and do it, because I think we will get a bigger share of the pot when that review happens.
“So I do want to see that sped up, and my frustration is I’m sure shared by the agricultural community here.
“And I know from having conversations with [UK Environment Secretary] Michael Gove he wants to get it done too, and it’s ready and set to go, we just need the Treasury to make it happen. So, I’m on it, is what I would say.”
Mr Gove previously promised a review into the distribution of the EU Convergence Uplift payments, which were triggered to allocate more money to Scottish hill farmers.
But last month he said this had been held up by the UK Treasury, which is ultimately responsible for the money.
Ms Davidson was speaking at an event at the Royal Highland Show hosted by law firm Shepherd and Wedderburn and property consultants Bidwells, where she also raised concerns over the UK Government’s plans to ban live animal exports after Brexit.
She argued this could prove “very dangerous” for farmers on Scotland’s islands who ship livestock to the mainland.
She said: “Some of those ferry journeys are shorter to France than they are from the Northern Isles to mainland Scotland.
“And I see the opportunity to exploit a ban overseas to a ban between the islands and the mainland here in Scotland, and I think that would be very dangerous for some of our island farmers.”
Ms Davidson told farmers she is is "pressing the case" on the need to respect Scotland's distinct needs after Brexit.
She called for Scotland to retain its share of funding when the UK leaves the common agricultural policy, and for both the Scottish and UK governments to focus on policies that help farmers, including access to the EU labour market.
Her comments follow a pledge from UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove that Scotland will receive "special treatment" to ensure farmers get the support they need after Brexit, with funding guaranteed until 2022.
Meanwhile, Scottish Government “Agriculture Champion” John Kinnaird, who was appointed last year to advise ministers on the sector, insisted past policies had fostered a culture of “dependency, inefficiency and inequality in many cases”.
The former president of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland told the meeting: “It’s a case of wake up and smell the coffee. This is an opportunity to deliver positive benefits to farmers, crofters, the public and the environment.
“Farm support is not a right – it’s an asset from the public purse to assist farmers and crofters to deliver public benefit over and above quality food production.”
He also raised the controversial suggestion that subsidies could be reduced for farmers nearing retirement age, in order to encourage new blood into the industry.
And he pleaded with politicians to “stop playing petty politics with agriculture”, adding: “This is an industry essential to the Scottish economy, and must not be used as a convenient political football.”
Ralph Peters, a partner at Bidwells, raised concerns Scottish farmers were “going to be very much more at the whim of the world market” after Brexit.
He said around 55 per cent of the total income from farming in 2017 came from EU subsidies.
Without this, the average loss for farms in Scotland would have been nearly £15,000 last year, he added.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel